Can someone please present an argument for Episcopalian valid apostolic succession?

ZooGirl02 · Oct 1, 2010

Hey everyone. I just left the Catholic Church and I am considering going to the Episcopal Church. I am a pretty liberal Christian but I don't really want to give up on the Sacraments. Anyway, one thing I was taught as a Catholic is that Episcopalians and Anglicans do not have valid apostolic succession. If you could please provide some sort of refutation for this (whether it be an article or whatever), I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 1, 2010

The original priests and bishops in the Anglican church all had previously been Catholic.
The bishops had all been in the apostolic succession. Eventually the Pope excommunicated them as a group.
However we maintain that there is no mechanism for removing the apostolic secession once passed on. the sucession has in turn continued unbroken in the Anglican and episcopal churches to this day.

It was interesting that the Pope did not wear his Mitre of authority when he accompanied the Arch bishop of Canterbury, in the Westminster Joint service last month. But he did Jointly bless the congregation. The Pope seems to recognise the Arch bishop's authority in the Anglican Faith, sufficient to Join him in a Joint service. Which is confusing if he does not recognise him as having the authority of the apostolic succession.

It is also interesting that the service was in part conduced by a female Canon, This was the first time the Pope has taken part in a service where a female priest took part.

Some High Church Anglicans would have walked out in the same circumstance. A few will not take communion in a church where a female priest has presided, till the church and altar have been reconsecrated. (most of those are now in the Catholic Priesthood)

Anglicans recognise only two Sacraments as ordained by Christ... baptism and the euchrist... the other five are sacramental rites.

Wiki Give a broad outlook on Anglican beliefs, But Individuals and groups within the church can differ fairly wideley on the interpretations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_sacraments

angellous_evangellous · Oct 1, 2010

Terrywoodenpic said:
The original priests and bishops in the Anglican church all had previously been Catholic.
The bishops had all been in the apostolic succession. Eventually the Pope excommunicated them as a group.

That's it.

The same thing happened to the Eastern Orthodox.

Quiddity · Oct 1, 2010

angellous_evangellous said:
That's it.

The same thing happened to the Eastern Orthodox.

It wasn't the same.

angellous_evangellous · Oct 1, 2010

Victor said:
It wasn't the same.

Close 'nuff.

Quiddity · Oct 1, 2010

angellous_evangellous said:
Close 'nuff.

Some similarities, yes. Anglicanism and it's American cousin the episcopalians have been a challenge for us to dicifer whether or not they enjoy apostolic succession. Episcopal/Anglican ordination/eucharist (for starters) can, and has changed (not all) to the point of it looking different then what was handed down. Of course, this our view of it.

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 1, 2010

Victor said:
It wasn't the same.

Both involved the primacy of the Pope, Dogma and politcs.
Both resulted in schism.

The details differed.

At the time of the separation and the excommunication of the Bishops. The form of the services and beliefs around the Eucharist were identical. The making of a Bishop never did required the knowledge or authority of the Pope.

Quiddity · Oct 1, 2010

Terrywoodenpic said:
Both involved the primacy of the Pope, Dogma and politcs.
Both resulted in schism.

The details differed.

At the time of the separation and the excommunication of the Bishops. The form of the services and beliefs around the Eucharist were identical. The making of a Bishop never did required the knowledge or authority of the Pope.

Primacy of the Pope? That was deffinately an issue with EO's, but I'm a bit fuzzy just how much of an issue it was with King Henry. This isn't the place so I'll mosey along.

9-10ths_Penguin · Oct 1, 2010

Victor said:
Some similarities, yes. Anglicanism and it's American cousin the episcopalians have been a challenge for us to dicifer whether or not they enjoy apostolic succession. Episcopal/Anglican ordination/eucharist (for starters) can, and has changed (not all) to the point of it looking different then what was handed down. Of course, this our view of it.

How is the Anglican form of ordination different from Catholic ordination?

More to the point, in the Catholic view, what are the required elements of the sacrament, and are they present in the Anglican form?

What are the required elements in the Anglican view?

angellous_evangellous · Oct 1, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
How is the Anglican form of ordination different from Catholic ordination?

More to the point, in the Catholic view, what are the required elements of the sacrament, and are they present in the Anglican form?

What are the required elements in the Anglican view?

I think that you will find varying opinions on this in the Church.

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 1, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
How is the Anglican form of ordination different from Catholic ordination?

More to the point, in the Catholic view, what are the required elements of the sacrament, and are they present in the Anglican form?

What are the required elements in the Anglican view?

Nearly all the services and sacraments are so close in form that someone could easily be forgiven for thinking one was the other.
Going into any service a catholic would notice at once that there was no Holy water at the entrance.
During the Eucharist the Anglicans are offered both parts, whilst in a catholic church this would be unusual.
Whilst St Mary is mentioned among st prayers an Anglican would find the greater Emphasis on Mary unusual.
Many of the standard Prayers and responses are identical or only differ by a word or two.

The main differences are how all these things are interpreted and the nuances of meaning.

However If A catholic was to go to a High Church Anglican service they would find no discernible differences at all.

Whilst Ordinations are equally similar as are confirmations and Baptisms, The main difference is that women are often taking part as Priests.

Although the Catholics have their own translations of the Bible, Anglicans would be unlikely to notice, as various translations are used church to church. So much so that the lessons may be read from one version and another used by the priest as references during his sermon.
As I mentioned in a previous post Anglicans recognise only two sacraments instituted by Christ and five sacramental rites introduced by the early church. However their actual forms in services are for all intents and purposes identical. Except for Confession.

Confession for an Anglican is directly to God and does not need a priest to take any part. However all Anglican priests wall take personal confessions if requested. They will not offer penances nor absolution., but lead you in prayer for Gods forgivenss.

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 1, 2010

Victor said:
Primacy of the Pope? That was deffinately an issue with EO's, but I'm a bit fuzzy just how much of an issue it was with King Henry. This isn't the place so I'll mosey along.

For Henry that was it's totality. He loved the Catholic Faith. But hated the power of the Pope. He was not much interested in the Protestant Faith .

Unlike the kings and Queens that followed him he did not want to change the faith or worship at all.

He most definitely wanted to destroy the power of the church though the removal of the monasteries and Papal offices

9-10ths_Penguin · Oct 1, 2010

Terrywoodenpic said:
Whilst Ordinations are equally similar as are confirmations and Baptisms, The main difference is that women are often taking part as Priests.

And, looking at things from a Catholic perspective, I could see how they'd say that an ordination performed by a woman was invalid, but from what I can gather, the Anglican communion didn't start ordaining women until the 1940s. Doesn't the Vatican's claim that the Anglicans have lost apostolic succession pre-date that?

Terrywoodenpic said:
As I mentioned in a previous post Anglicans recognise only two sacraments instituted by Christ and five sacramental rites introduced by the early church. However their actual forms in services are for all intents and purposes identical. Except for Confession.

Is that the issue? Is the Catholic position based on some idea that if the priest believes that the sacrament was instituted by the church instead of by Christ himself, the sacrament isn't valid?

I think I've heard something like this when it comes to the Eucharist (i.e. that by not accepting transusbstantiation, the priest doesn't have the "right intent" when performing the ritual), but I've never heard it about Holy Orders.

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 1, 2010

9-10ths_Penguin said:
And, looking at things from a Catholic perspective, I could see how they'd say that an ordination performed by a woman was invalid, but from what I can gather, the Anglican communion didn't start ordaining women until the 1940s. Doesn't the Vatican's claim that the Anglicans have lost apostolic succession pre-date that?

Is that the issue? Is the Catholic position based on some idea that if the priest believes that the sacrament was instituted by the church instead of by Christ himself, the sacrament isn't valid?

I think I've heard something like this when it comes to the Eucharist (i.e. that by not accepting transusbstantiation, the priest doesn't have the "right intent" when performing the ritual), but I've never heard it about Holy Orders.

The Anglicans are thought by the Catholics to have broken secession because they did not use the correct forms and words when laying on hands during the ordination of Bishops. This was during a short period under Cranmer . The Anglicans insist that secession still occurred and that the exact words and forms used by the Roman Church are not necessary. To day when an Anglican priest Joins the Catholic faith he is provisionally ordained again in case the first was invalid.

The argument seems specious. The Catholic Church believe if an evil priest offers mass it is still valid to those receiving it. The same would seem to me to be true of ordination, it is the power of God and the faith of those receiving ordination that is vital not the quality of the priest officiating. Defects in words used and errors of faith on the part of previous officiating priests would otherwise call into doubt all ordinations.

Herein lays the problem, Both Churches believe the Laying on of hands and the receiving of the holy spirit endow priest with authority. Each church sees those powers differently and denies the other. For instance Anglicans do not believe a priest can forgive sins and nor is a priest necessary in the process.

ZooGirl02 · Oct 2, 2010

Thanks for the responses everyone! I really appreciate it!

Anyway, I was thinking that the Papal bull by Pope Leo XIII, "Apostolicae Curae" and the Anglican's response, "Saepius Officio" would be very relevant to this discussion. Has anyone here ever read both of them? If so, what was your opinion of them?

Smoke · Oct 2, 2010

Terrywoodenpic said:
A few will not take communion in a church where a female priest has presided, till the church and altar have been reconsecrated.

Has that ever actually been done?

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 3, 2010

Smoke said:
Has that ever actually been done?

Yes it was done several times in one of our local Anglican churches. The priest eventualy retired early, but he had some support for his view.

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 3, 2010

ZooGirl02 said:
Thanks for the responses everyone! I really appreciate it!

Anyway, I was thinking that the Papal bull by Pope Leo XIII, "Apostolic Curae" and the Anglican's response, "Saepius Officio" would be very relevant to this discussion. Has anyone here ever read both of them? If so, what was your opinion of them?

Yes as well as some of the earlier work. it is all very technical. And the arguments used rather circular.

My view is that succession can not rely on maintaining exact Forms or words and that a Bishop would be in succession what ever the forms and words used were. There is no certainty that all Catholic bishops used the correct forms or words from the beginning.

It is like passing on the baton in a relay race. It is the movement of the Baton that is important not who caries it or how.

The Catholic view is that there is a "magical" element, in that a Bishop become differently endowed with additional spiritual powers after the laying on of hands etc.

We would maintain all power is in the hand of God and through the Holy spirit.

Clearly Bulls and "Infallibility" are Catholic concerns not Anglican ones.
I do not doubt that the Catholics hold the views they do, and for the reasons they give.
The Anglicans have a different understanding of the truth of the matter.

Master Vigil · Oct 3, 2010

I am afraid to say this... but I feel I must. Some of you will remember my big long thread about returning to Catholicism because of seeing what happened at the Eucharist. If not, you can view it HERE for reference because I really don't want to argue about it... I would just like to add it as a tiny tidbit. Take it as you like, as really could care less about the majority of Catholicism, but the Eucharist.

I see the spiritual activity in Catholic Mass, and all the old rites (eastern orthodox, russian orthodox, etc...) But I do not see it in the Anglican or Episcopalian masses, nor do I see it in the Lutheran masses. Which saddened me, because I wanted to be become one of the two latter. They would allow me to be a priest and married... which is truly what I want. Again, my two cents.

Terrywoodenpic · Oct 3, 2010

Master Vigil said:
I am afraid to say this... but I feel I must. Some of you will remember my big long thread about returning to Catholicism because of seeing what happened at the Eucharist. If not, you can view it HERE for reference because I really don't want to argue about it... I would just like to add it as a tiny tidbit. Take it as you like, as really could care less about the majority of Catholicism, but the Eucharist.

I see the spiritual activity in Catholic Mass, and all the old rites (eastern orthodox, russian orthodox, etc...) But I do not see it in the Anglican or Episcopalian masses, nor do I see it in the Lutheran masses. Which saddened me, because I wanted to be become one of the two latter. They would allow me to be a priest and married... which is truly what I want. Again, my two cents.

It would seem to me that you would find what you are looking for in the High Church of England ( Anglo Catholic)

Their services are identical to the old Latin masses, words customs and vestments, bells, incense etc but in English. The Host is given in both parts in the old style and the English tradition. It has never changed to the modern catholic practise of giving the bread only. You cold say the style is like the pre 1950's catholic service..

I do not know if there are any High churches in the USA, but I would suspect that there still are.

Can someone please present an argument for Episcopalian valid apostolic succession?

Well-Known Member

Oldest Heretic

angellous_evangellous

Guest

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

angellous_evangellous

Guest

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Oldest Heretic

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

1/10 Subway Stalinist

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Oldest Heretic

Oldest Heretic

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Oldest Heretic

Well-Known Member

Done here.

Oldest Heretic

Oldest Heretic

Well-Known Member

Oldest Heretic